Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!rpi!bu.edu!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: cga66@ihlpy.att.com (Patrick V Kauffold)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Using the rifle suited to the previous war?
Message-ID: <1991Jan5.021709.27698@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 5 Jan 91 02:17:09 GMT
References: <1991Jan4.010534.16506@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 28
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: cga66@ihlpy.att.com (Patrick V Kauffold)
>   Looking at TV presentations of the desert landscape, I
> wonder if the M16 is the right rifle for the circumstances?
> 
> --henry schaffer  n c state univ

I remember from the M14/M16 argument during the mid-60's that the
mean battle range in Europe was 500 yards; this was the argument
for keeping the 7.62 mm NATO-compatible M14.  The M1 and M14 are
both quite accurate at 500 yards.

The M16, on the other hand, is effective out to about 300 yards.

I believe that most of the other NATO armies have stayed with
the 7.62 mm rifles.  

The advantages for the M14 in the desert would be (a) greater
effective range (b) more reliable in sand/dirt (c) ammo common
to M60 MG and other NATO forces.

Disadvantages are (a) weight of weapon (b) weight of ammo (c)
lower automatic rate of fire.

Marines stayed with the M14 after the Army went to M16, but later
gave it up sometime in the late 60's, I think.  The Marines are
still serious about rifle marksmanship, though.